this derivation is a pretty obvious one. It must be mentioned first, as it is said by Gellius (vii. 12) to have been the oldest, and indeed at one time the only garment. Though this can only apply to appearing in public, for mention is made of the tunica from the very earliest times. The toga was worn in the house; and at work, perhaps only a subligaculum. Dionys. x. 17, of Cincinnatus, ȧxíτwv, tepiČwμátiov čxwv. Liv. iii. 26. Even later the toga was worn without the tunica; so of Cato; Plut. Cat. min. 6. åɣíTwv és тò dημóσiov πрoyeɩ. Asc. ad Cic. p. Scaur. p. 30. So also the candidati were avev xir@vos, according to Plut. Cor. 14. qu. Rom. 49. Whether its origin is to be sought for in Lydia, or whether the custom passed from Etruria to Lydia, and thence to Rome, (see Müller, Etr. i. 262), is a disputed point, and not capable of proof; but there is no doubt that it was used by the Etruscans earlier than by the Romans, and it is among the former nation that we find it worn on the bare body on statues. Besides which, the toga prætexta is distinctly mentioned as derived from the Etrurians. Liv. i. 8. Plin. viii, 48,74 : Prætextæ apud Etruscos originem invenere. It was peculiarly the vestis forensis. Thus Cincinnatus puts it on, before receiving the embassy of the senate. Consequently it was laid aside when one returned to his house, or left Rome. Cic. p. Mil. 10. Milo cum in senatu fuisset -domum venit-calceos et vestimenta mutat. Hence it is called dσTIKη éσons, Dio Cass. fr. 145. Ivi. 81; and the dress of peace, in opposition to the sagum. xli. 17. τὴν ἐσθῆτα τὴν εἰρηνικὴν.

It was then the distinguishing garment of the Roman, and only worn by those who had the right of civitas; hence exiles, at least under the emperors, were not permitted to wear it. Pliny relates of Valerius Licinianus, who lived in banishment in Sicily, as a teacher of rhetoric (Epist. iv. 11): Idem, cum Græco pallio amictus intrasset, (carent enim togæ jure, quibus aqua et igni interdictum est) postquam se composuit circumspexitque habitum suum: Latine, inquit, declamaturus sum. Strangers did not presume to wear the toga, as we learn from the laughable decision of Claudius. Suet. Claud. 15: Peregrinitatis reum, orta inter advocatos levi contentione, togatumne an palliatum dicere causam oporteret,―mutare habitum sæpius, et prout accusaretur defendereturve, jussit. The Roman was not only entitled to wear the toga, but he was even liable to a penalty if he appeared abroad in foreign costume; as minuens majestatem P. R. Hence the charge against Rabirius, Cic. p. Rab. 9, palliatum fuisse, aliqua habuisse non Romani hominis insignia. On the other hand, Verr. v. 33, stetit soleatus prætor p. R. cum pallio purpureo tunicaque talari. 52. comp. iv. 24, 25; v. 13, 16. But in the civil wars, the pallium, or some similar garment which was more conve[GAL.]

18

nient, got into use; so that Augustus issued a decree forbidding this innovation; but only in regard to appearing in the forum and circus. Suet. Aug. 40, Visa quondam pro concione palliatorum turba indignabundus et clamitans: En ait

Romanos rerum dominos gentemque togatam.

Negotium ædilibus dedit, ne quem posthac paterentur in foro circoque nisi positis lacernis togatam consistere. (The lacerna having been worn over the toga: see below.) Hence the Romans were denominated simply togati, or, as in Virg. Æn. i. 282, gens togata. [Mart. xiii. 124.] In later times it fell into disuse, and continued to be worn only by the higher orders, at judicial proceedings, or by clients receiving the sportula, at the salutatio, and at the anteambulatio, and, lastly, at the theatre and public games, in deference to the presence of the emperors. Hence what Lamprid. (16) relates of Commodus is an exception: contra consuetudinem panulatos jussit spectatores, non togatos ad munus convenire. At a later period those invited to the imperial table, at least, were compelled to appear in it. Spart. Sever. i. Quum rogatus ad cœnam imperatoriam palliatus venisset, qui togatus venire debuerat, togam præsidiariam ipsius imperatoris accepit. But it may

be doubted whether such a custom prevailed in the time of Augustus, and the author therefore may probably escape censure for allowing Gallus, in the first scene, to wear the synthesis. [But after the above-mentioned interdict of Augustus, the toga only could have been worn at court.]

There are three points to which we must direct our attention; the form of the toga, the manner of wearing it, and the material of which it was composed. There has been much discussion concerning the form, though it is placed beyond all doubt by the clearest testimonies. Dion. Hal., iii. 61, says: Teрißóλalov ýμikúrλiov. Tà đè τοιαῦτα τῶν ἀμφιεσμάτων Ῥωμαῖοι μὲν τόγας, Ελληνες δὲ τήβεννον Kaλovσw; Quinct. Inst. xi. 3: Ipsam togam rotundam esse et apte, cæsam velim; Isid. Orig. xix. 24: Toga dicta, quod velamento su corpus tegat atque operiat. Est autem pallium purum forma rotunda effusiore et quasi inundante sinu, et sub dextro veniens supra humerum sinistrum ponitur; and Athenæus (v. 213), in mentioning the cruelty with which Mithridates treated the Romans, says: Tv & addor Ρωμαίων οἱ μὲν θεῶν ἀγάλμασι προσπεπτώκασιν, οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ μεταμφι εσάμενοι τετράγωνα ἱμάτια τὰς ἐξ ἀρχῆς πατρίδας πάλιν ὀνομάζουσιν. They denied the community with Romans by assuming an unroman square garment; and the same is the meaning of pallium teres, Tertull. de Pall. i. in contradistinction to the proper square pallium. Many have, however, supposed that it was square; and

Von Seckendorf has endeavoured to prove that the adjustment of the robe, visible in statues, can be effected by means of a square toga. But this seems to require a most distinct contradiction, and will be best confuted by the following explanation of the mode of adjusting the toga, by which tying was out of the question. It is supposed that this μkúkλov was the segment of a large circle, (Müll. Etr. 263, and Spalding on Quinct. 443); but it appears doubtful whether in that case the width, which the dress evidently possessed, could be attained. Horace (Epod. iv. 8,) designates a toga of six ells, as a very wide one; and if we take the semicircular segment, with a chord of six ells, the greatest breadth would be three ells, with which the breadth of fold that we find under Augustus never could have been attained; and Quinctilian, in that case, would not have needed to direct that it should be apte cæsa. It was, on the contrary, round, but possessing a greater width than would have been possible with the segment of a circle; and in this manner only can we explain the adjustment of the toga in statues; e. g. in the Mus. Borb. vii. 43, and in the Augusteum, iii. 119 and 124.

Concerning the manner of adjusting it, the chief passage is in Quinctil. xi. 3, 137: Est aliquid in amictu; quod ipsum aliquatenus temporum conditione mutatum est. Nam veteribus nulli sinus; perquam breves post illos fuerunt. Itaque etiam gestu necesse est usos esse in principiis eos alio, quorum brachium, sicut Græcorum, veste continebatur. Sed nos de præsentibus loquimur. Ipsam togam rotundam esse et apte cæsam velim. Aliter enim multis modis fiet enormis. Pars ejus prior mediis cruribus optime terminatur, posterior eadem portione altius, qua cinctura. Sinus decentissimus, si aliquanto supra imam togam fuerit, nunquam certe sit inferior. Ille qui sub humero dextro ad sinistrum oblique ducitur, velut balteus, nec strangulet, nec fluat. Pars togæ, quæ postea imponitur, sit inferior; nam ita et sedet melius et continetur. Subducenda etiam pars aliqua tunicæ, ne ad lacertum in actu redeat: tum sinus injiciendus humero, cujus extremam oram rejecisse non dedecet. Operiri autem humerum cum toto jugulo non oportet; alioqui amictus fiet angustus et dignitatem, quæ est in latitudine pectoris, perdet. Sinistrum brachium eo usque allevandum est, ut quasi normalem illum angulum faciat. Super quod ora ex toga duplex æqualiter sedeat. Spalding's commentary has done away with most of the difficulties of the text, but still it is not clear how the whole was adjusted, and how the balteus and the sinus arose, and yet these are the two points which require most explanation. The description of the tedious minuteness in the adjustment of the toga, as compared with that of the pallium, is

perhaps not less instructive. Tertull. de Pallio, 5: Prius etiam ad simplicem captatelam ejus nullo tædio constat (pallium); adeo nec artificem necesse est, qui pridie rugas ab exordio formet et inde deducat in tilias totumque contracti umbonis figmentum custodibus forcipibus assignet, dehinc diluculo tunica prius cingulo correpta, quam præstabat moderatiorem texuisse, recognito rursus umbone, et, si quid exorbitavit, reformato partem quidem de lævo promittat, ambitum vero ejus, ex quo sinus nascitur jam deficientibus tabulis retrahat a scapulis et exclusa dextera in laevam adhuc congerat cum alio pari tabulato in terga devoto, atque ita hominem sarcina vestiat.

We must especially distinguish between two different ways of adjusting the toga; the older and more simple, and the later, when it was broader, and the folds more ample. We see an instance of

the first in the above engraving, copied from a statue in the Dresden collection, Augusteum, 117. The robing of four other statues in the same collection is precisely the same, and in a sixth, the toga is far more voluminously folded, but the way of putting it on the same. In this figure, the adjustment is very simple; the one end is thrown over the left shoulder to the front, so that the round side falls outwards; the robe is then conducted behind the body, and over the right shoulder, so that the arm rests in it, as in a sling, whilst the whole remaining portion being drawn across the front of the person, is thrown over the left shoulder. The second end hangs down the back, and the left arm is concealed by the robe falling over it. We here see plainly what Quinctilian means by brachium veste continebatur; for the hand only is free, and if we take the folds, in which the arm reposes, for a sinus, it is at all events a perquam brevis one.

A description of the second mode of adjustment is far more difficult. It is, however, here represented after a statue of Lucius Mammius Maximus, found in Herculaneum, and copied in the Mus. Borb. vi. 41, and with which the similarly draped statues in the August. 119 and 124, and Mus. Borb. vii. 43 and 49, may be compared. The parts named by Quinctilian are clearly visible, and it is easy to point out the velut balteus, the sinus, and the ora duplex, although it is very difficult to unravel the robe in one's mind, or to produce a similar adjustment. After manifold experiments with square and round cloths, the author became convinced that it requires a half-round and very long robe, but broader or wider, in proportion to its length, than the segment of a circle would be. This garment was also first thrown across the left shoulder, but the portion with the point depending in front, was brought down much lower, (in our statue as low as the feet; in those in the August. 124, and in the Mus. Borb. vii. 49, it even falls on the ground), and this of itself covered the left arm entirely. The toga was then drawn behind the back, and so on to the front of the body, and then doubled together in a fold at about the middle of its breadth, so that the upper part fell down as a sinus, and the lower part covered the body and the legs; thus arose the bundle of folds crossing obliquely from under the right arm, athwart the breast1, and which is

Probably the following remarks by M. Le Cte. de Clarac, in con

nexion with the magnificent statue of Tiberius in the Louvre, may serve